| Message ID | 20210723183114.26017-3-laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | iio: ti-dac5571: Add TI DAC081C081 support | expand |
Hi Laurent,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on iio/togreg]
[also build test ERROR on robh/for-next v5.14-rc2 next-20210723]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Laurent-Pinchart/iio-ti-dac5571-Add-TI-DAC081C081-support/20210724-023333
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jic23/iio.git togreg
config: x86_64-randconfig-s022-20210723 (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-10 (Ubuntu 10.3.0-1ubuntu1~20.04) 10.3.0
reproduce:
# apt-get install sparse
# sparse version: v0.6.3-341-g8af24329-dirty
# https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commit/aea544dbbcecf5d723ede9b42a2da945ac5038f9
git remote add linux-review https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
git fetch --no-tags linux-review Laurent-Pinchart/iio-ti-dac5571-Add-TI-DAC081C081-support/20210724-023333
git checkout aea544dbbcecf5d723ede9b42a2da945ac5038f9
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make W=1 C=1 CF='-fdiagnostic-prefix -D__CHECK_ENDIAN__' ARCH=x86_64
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c: In function 'dac5571_probe':
>> drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c:331:24: error: implicit declaration of function 'of_device_get_match_data'; did you mean 'device_get_match_data'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
331 | chip_id = (uintptr_t)of_device_get_match_data(dev);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| device_get_match_data
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
vim +331 drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c
306
307 static int dac5571_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
308 const struct i2c_device_id *id)
309 {
310 struct device *dev = &client->dev;
311 const struct dac5571_spec *spec;
312 struct dac5571_data *data;
313 struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
314 enum chip_id chip_id;
315 int ret, i;
316
317 indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(dev, sizeof(*data));
318 if (!indio_dev)
319 return -ENOMEM;
320
321 data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
322 i2c_set_clientdata(client, indio_dev);
323 data->client = client;
324
325 indio_dev->info = &dac5571_info;
326 indio_dev->name = id->name;
327 indio_dev->modes = INDIO_DIRECT_MODE;
328 indio_dev->channels = dac5571_channels;
329
330 if (dev->of_node)
> 331 chip_id = (uintptr_t)of_device_get_match_data(dev);
332 else
333 chip_id = id->driver_data;
334
335 spec = &dac5571_spec[chip_id];
336
337 indio_dev->num_channels = spec->num_channels;
338 data->spec = spec;
339
340 data->vref = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vref");
341 if (IS_ERR(data->vref))
342 return PTR_ERR(data->vref);
343
344 ret = regulator_enable(data->vref);
345 if (ret < 0)
346 return ret;
347
348 mutex_init(&data->lock);
349
350 switch (spec->num_channels) {
351 case 1:
352 data->dac5571_cmd = dac5571_cmd_single;
353 data->dac5571_pwrdwn = dac5571_pwrdwn_single;
354 break;
355 case 4:
356 data->dac5571_cmd = dac5571_cmd_quad;
357 data->dac5571_pwrdwn = dac5571_pwrdwn_quad;
358 break;
359 default:
360 goto err;
361 }
362
363 for (i = 0; i < spec->num_channels; i++) {
364 ret = data->dac5571_cmd(data, i, 0);
365 if (ret) {
366 dev_err(dev, "failed to initialize channel %d to 0\n", i);
367 goto err;
368 }
369 }
370
371 ret = iio_device_register(indio_dev);
372 if (ret)
373 goto err;
374
375 return 0;
376
377 err:
378 regulator_disable(data->vref);
379 return ret;
380 }
381
---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org
On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 03:06:54 +0300 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > From: Jose Cazarin <joseespiriki@gmail.com> > > When matching an OF device, the match mechanism tries all components of > the compatible property. This can result with a device matched with a > compatible string that isn't the first in the compatible list. For > instance, with a compatible property set to > > compatible = "ti,dac081c081", "ti,dac5571"; > > the driver will match the second compatible string, as the first one > isn't listed in the of_device_id table. The device will however be named > "dac081c081" by the I2C core. > > This causes an issue when identifying the chip. The probe function > receives a i2c_device_id that comes from the module's I2C device ID > table. There is no entry in that table for "dac081c081", which results > in a NULL pointer passed to the probe function. > > To fix this, add chip_id information in the data field of the OF device > ID table, and retrieve it with of_device_get_match_data() for OF > devices. > > Signed-off-by: Jose Cazarin <joseespiriki@gmail.com> > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> Interesting problem that I hadn't previously realised could happen. One request though, can we use device_get_match_data() here rather than the of specific version? Include property.h as well for that. That should allow the same issue with compatible to work correctly when using PRP0001 based ACPI methods. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.14-rc1/source/drivers/acpi/bus.c#L891 Will result in acpi_of_device_get_match_data() being called which will match to the of_device_id table. Thanks, Jonathan > --- > Changes since v1: > > - Include linux/of_device.h > --- > drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c > index 2a5ba1b08a1d..8ceb1b42b14e 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ > #include <linux/i2c.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h> > +#include <linux/of_device.h> > #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > > enum chip_id { > @@ -311,6 +312,7 @@ static int dac5571_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > const struct dac5571_spec *spec; > struct dac5571_data *data; > struct iio_dev *indio_dev; > + enum chip_id chip_id; > int ret, i; > > indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(dev, sizeof(*data)); > @@ -326,7 +328,13 @@ static int dac5571_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > indio_dev->modes = INDIO_DIRECT_MODE; > indio_dev->channels = dac5571_channels; > > - spec = &dac5571_spec[id->driver_data]; > + if (dev->of_node) > + chip_id = (uintptr_t)of_device_get_match_data(dev); > + else > + chip_id = id->driver_data; > + > + spec = &dac5571_spec[chip_id]; > + > indio_dev->num_channels = spec->num_channels; > data->spec = spec; > > @@ -384,15 +392,15 @@ static int dac5571_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c) > } > > static const struct of_device_id dac5571_of_id[] = { > - {.compatible = "ti,dac5571"}, > - {.compatible = "ti,dac6571"}, > - {.compatible = "ti,dac7571"}, > - {.compatible = "ti,dac5574"}, > - {.compatible = "ti,dac6574"}, > - {.compatible = "ti,dac7574"}, > - {.compatible = "ti,dac5573"}, > - {.compatible = "ti,dac6573"}, > - {.compatible = "ti,dac7573"}, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = (void *)single_8bit}, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = (void *)single_10bit}, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = (void *)single_12bit}, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = (void *)quad_8bit}, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = (void *)quad_10bit}, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = (void *)quad_12bit}, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = (void *)quad_8bit}, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = (void *)quad_10bit}, > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = (void *)quad_12bit}, > {} > }; > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, dac5571_of_id);
Hi Jonathan, On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 03:43:08PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 03:06:54 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > From: Jose Cazarin <joseespiriki@gmail.com> > > > > When matching an OF device, the match mechanism tries all components of > > the compatible property. This can result with a device matched with a > > compatible string that isn't the first in the compatible list. For > > instance, with a compatible property set to > > > > compatible = "ti,dac081c081", "ti,dac5571"; > > > > the driver will match the second compatible string, as the first one > > isn't listed in the of_device_id table. The device will however be named > > "dac081c081" by the I2C core. > > > > This causes an issue when identifying the chip. The probe function > > receives a i2c_device_id that comes from the module's I2C device ID > > table. There is no entry in that table for "dac081c081", which results > > in a NULL pointer passed to the probe function. > > > > To fix this, add chip_id information in the data field of the OF device > > ID table, and retrieve it with of_device_get_match_data() for OF > > devices. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jose Cazarin <joseespiriki@gmail.com> > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > > Interesting problem that I hadn't previously realised could happen. > > One request though, can we use device_get_match_data() here rather than > the of specific version? Include property.h as well for that. > > That should allow the same issue with compatible to work correctly when > using PRP0001 based ACPI methods. > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.14-rc1/source/drivers/acpi/bus.c#L891 > Will result in acpi_of_device_get_match_data() being called which will > match to the of_device_id table. Good point. I wasn't aware of PRP0001. I'll submit a v2 with this fixed, after giving a bit of time for additional review, if any (I'm in particular interested in whether this issue should be fixed in individual drivers or in the I2C core, as explained in the cover letter)). > > --- > > Changes since v1: > > > > - Include linux/of_device.h > > --- > > drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++---------- > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c > > index 2a5ba1b08a1d..8ceb1b42b14e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c > > +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c > > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ > > #include <linux/i2c.h> > > #include <linux/module.h> > > #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h> > > +#include <linux/of_device.h> > > #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > > > > enum chip_id { > > @@ -311,6 +312,7 @@ static int dac5571_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > > const struct dac5571_spec *spec; > > struct dac5571_data *data; > > struct iio_dev *indio_dev; > > + enum chip_id chip_id; > > int ret, i; > > > > indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(dev, sizeof(*data)); > > @@ -326,7 +328,13 @@ static int dac5571_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > > indio_dev->modes = INDIO_DIRECT_MODE; > > indio_dev->channels = dac5571_channels; > > > > - spec = &dac5571_spec[id->driver_data]; > > + if (dev->of_node) > > + chip_id = (uintptr_t)of_device_get_match_data(dev); > > + else > > + chip_id = id->driver_data; > > + > > + spec = &dac5571_spec[chip_id]; > > + > > indio_dev->num_channels = spec->num_channels; > > data->spec = spec; > > > > @@ -384,15 +392,15 @@ static int dac5571_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c) > > } > > > > static const struct of_device_id dac5571_of_id[] = { > > - {.compatible = "ti,dac5571"}, > > - {.compatible = "ti,dac6571"}, > > - {.compatible = "ti,dac7571"}, > > - {.compatible = "ti,dac5574"}, > > - {.compatible = "ti,dac6574"}, > > - {.compatible = "ti,dac7574"}, > > - {.compatible = "ti,dac5573"}, > > - {.compatible = "ti,dac6573"}, > > - {.compatible = "ti,dac7573"}, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = (void *)single_8bit}, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = (void *)single_10bit}, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = (void *)single_12bit}, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = (void *)quad_8bit}, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = (void *)quad_10bit}, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = (void *)quad_12bit}, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = (void *)quad_8bit}, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = (void *)quad_10bit}, > > + {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = (void *)quad_12bit}, > > {} > > }; > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, dac5571_of_id); > -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
> > When matching an OF device, the match mechanism tries all components of > > the compatible property. This can result with a device matched with a > > compatible string that isn't the first in the compatible list. For > > instance, with a compatible property set to > > > > compatible = "ti,dac081c081", "ti,dac5571"; > > > > the driver will match the second compatible string, as the first one > > isn't listed in the of_device_id table. The device will however be named > > "dac081c081" by the I2C core. > > > > This causes an issue when identifying the chip. The probe function > > receives a i2c_device_id that comes from the module's I2C device ID > > table. There is no entry in that table for "dac081c081", which results > > in a NULL pointer passed to the probe function. > > > > To fix this, add chip_id information in the data field of the OF device > > ID table, and retrieve it with of_device_get_match_data() for OF > > devices. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jose Cazarin <joseespiriki@gmail.com> > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > > Interesting problem that I hadn't previously realised could happen. > > One request though, can we use device_get_match_data() here rather than > the of specific version? Include property.h as well for that. > > That should allow the same issue with compatible to work correctly when > using PRP0001 based ACPI methods. > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.14-rc1/source/drivers/acpi/bus.c#L891 > Will result in acpi_of_device_get_match_data() being called which will > match to the of_device_id table. Couldn't you use the "new" probe_new() callback instead which will drop the i2c_device_id? Kieran was interested in such conversions IIRC.
Hi Wolfram, On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:44:20PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > When matching an OF device, the match mechanism tries all components of > > > the compatible property. This can result with a device matched with a > > > compatible string that isn't the first in the compatible list. For > > > instance, with a compatible property set to > > > > > > compatible = "ti,dac081c081", "ti,dac5571"; > > > > > > the driver will match the second compatible string, as the first one > > > isn't listed in the of_device_id table. The device will however be named > > > "dac081c081" by the I2C core. > > > > > > This causes an issue when identifying the chip. The probe function > > > receives a i2c_device_id that comes from the module's I2C device ID > > > table. There is no entry in that table for "dac081c081", which results > > > in a NULL pointer passed to the probe function. > > > > > > To fix this, add chip_id information in the data field of the OF device > > > ID table, and retrieve it with of_device_get_match_data() for OF > > > devices. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jose Cazarin <joseespiriki@gmail.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> > > > > Interesting problem that I hadn't previously realised could happen. > > > > One request though, can we use device_get_match_data() here rather than > > the of specific version? Include property.h as well for that. > > > > That should allow the same issue with compatible to work correctly when > > using PRP0001 based ACPI methods. > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.14-rc1/source/drivers/acpi/bus.c#L891 > > Will result in acpi_of_device_get_match_data() being called which will > > match to the of_device_id table. > > Couldn't you use the "new" probe_new() callback instead which will drop > the i2c_device_id? Kieran was interested in such conversions IIRC. It's a bit unrelated to this patch, but I can add another patch to the series. While I have your attention, there's a question for you in the cover letter :-) Could you please have a look ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
> > Couldn't you use the "new" probe_new() callback instead which will drop > > the i2c_device_id? Kieran was interested in such conversions IIRC. > > It's a bit unrelated to this patch, but I can add another patch to the > series. > > While I have your attention, there's a question for you in the cover > letter :-) Could you please have a look ? ? This was the answer to that question. Unless I misunderstood.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:58:19PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > Couldn't you use the "new" probe_new() callback instead which will drop > > > the i2c_device_id? Kieran was interested in such conversions IIRC. > > > > It's a bit unrelated to this patch, but I can add another patch to the > > series. > > > > While I have your attention, there's a question for you in the cover > > letter :-) Could you please have a look ? > > ? This was the answer to that question. Unless I misunderstood. My point is that this patch shouldn't be needed. I'd like if the I2C core could get the driver data from the i2c_device_id table instead of duplicating it in the of_device_id. This isn't possible today as i2c_match_id() doesn't have the fallback mechanism that OF matching has.
Hi Wolfram, On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:20:03AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:58:19PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > Couldn't you use the "new" probe_new() callback instead which will drop > > > > the i2c_device_id? Kieran was interested in such conversions IIRC. > > > > > > It's a bit unrelated to this patch, but I can add another patch to the > > > series. > > > > > > While I have your attention, there's a question for you in the cover > > > letter :-) Could you please have a look ? > > > > ? This was the answer to that question. Unless I misunderstood. > > My point is that this patch shouldn't be needed. I'd like if the I2C > core could get the driver data from the i2c_device_id table instead of > duplicating it in the of_device_id. This isn't possible today as > i2c_match_id() doesn't have the fallback mechanism that OF matching has. Any thought on this ?
diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c index 2a5ba1b08a1d..bd005b3a976b 100644 --- a/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c +++ b/drivers/iio/dac/ti-dac5571.c @@ -311,6 +311,7 @@ static int dac5571_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct dac5571_spec *spec; struct dac5571_data *data; struct iio_dev *indio_dev; + enum chip_id chip_id; int ret, i; indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(dev, sizeof(*data)); @@ -326,7 +327,13 @@ static int dac5571_probe(struct i2c_client *client, indio_dev->modes = INDIO_DIRECT_MODE; indio_dev->channels = dac5571_channels; - spec = &dac5571_spec[id->driver_data]; + if (dev->of_node) + chip_id = (uintptr_t)of_device_get_match_data(dev); + else + chip_id = id->driver_data; + + spec = &dac5571_spec[chip_id]; + indio_dev->num_channels = spec->num_channels; data->spec = spec; @@ -384,15 +391,15 @@ static int dac5571_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c) } static const struct of_device_id dac5571_of_id[] = { - {.compatible = "ti,dac5571"}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac6571"}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac7571"}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac5574"}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac6574"}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac7574"}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac5573"}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac6573"}, - {.compatible = "ti,dac7573"}, + {.compatible = "ti,dac5571", .data = (void *)single_8bit}, + {.compatible = "ti,dac6571", .data = (void *)single_10bit}, + {.compatible = "ti,dac7571", .data = (void *)single_12bit}, + {.compatible = "ti,dac5574", .data = (void *)quad_8bit}, + {.compatible = "ti,dac6574", .data = (void *)quad_10bit}, + {.compatible = "ti,dac7574", .data = (void *)quad_12bit}, + {.compatible = "ti,dac5573", .data = (void *)quad_8bit}, + {.compatible = "ti,dac6573", .data = (void *)quad_10bit}, + {.compatible = "ti,dac7573", .data = (void *)quad_12bit}, {} }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, dac5571_of_id);